Just how do you go about ignoring someone? I've been trying to figure it out for an hour, there are a few on here I can't wait to ignore, somebody help!
Thanks, Mike
Additional widebody aircraft
- Thread starter damajagua
- Start date
Just how do you go about ignoring someone? I've been trying to figure it out for an hour, there are a few on here I can't wait to ignore, somebody help!
Thanks, Mike
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Top left of this page, you'll see your login ("Signed In As") and to the right of that, a down arrow. Click it and on the list of stuff that drops down you'll see "manage ignored users" - click on it. Enter the screen name of the party offensive to you and click save.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
Ken M,
Yes, I understand very much what AA employees have given up over the past few years... the problem is that unfortunately other competitors have obtained lower costs one way or another - and what was done 8 years ago even then was not sufficient.
At the same time, your post embodies the real problem which is clearly that labor has no desire to work w/ management to solve AA's cost problems - and it should be apparent to you by now and will be increasingly more apparent as time goes by - that AA's labor's unwillingness to help figure out how to solve AA's problems will come at great cost to AA employees.
No one is doubting the contributions you have made; I am not saying that you or management alone are off the hook or completely to blame - but it does mean that AA's future is in jeopardy as long as there is no desire to see AA's problems solved.
E,
I know you and others want to try to find something that says that AA will be just fine w/ its network but your arguments are not persuasive or grounded in any kind of evidence consistent w/ the history of the airline industry.
AA WAS the world's largest airline not that long ago and was proud to use that in its advertising. The simple fact is that AA engaged in a very aggressive effort to diversify its network - and most of those efforts failed:
1. East coast hubs at BNA and RDU were built in hopes of capturing the SE through two hubs yet neither were able to grow large enough to challenge ATL and CLT which are the two dominant hubs in the SE. Both hubs are now dominated by WN and DL is the largest network carrier in both hubs.
2. SJC was started as a west coast hub but couldn't compete against low cost carriers on the west coast. To be fair only UA has maintained a hub ON the west coast among US network carriers but AA has also seen its market position eroded in every west coast market as a result of the latest round of mergers and it is doubtful that AA will be able to regain a large enough position on the west coast.
3. AA tried to expand in continental Europe but, absent a large/strong enough partner on the continent - esp. in northern Europe - AA has been unable to diversify its European route system away from LHR - which has driven most of AA's transatlantic profits. Now LHR is open to other airlines who are aggressively growing and AA is the smallest of the FOUR US network airlines in continental Europe - yes, US is larger in continental Europe than AA even though US has no immunized partners.
4. We've discussed Asia but suffice to say that AA has no viable gateway that can compete to Asia without having a larger US competitor in the market.
AA has dropped from being the number one airline in the US NE, with DL becoming #1 at both LGA and JFK - AA's former hometown and at BOS and with CO larger in NYC as a whole and in WAS.
Latin America is the only region where AA has been able to maintain its market presence - and where it is still #1... proof enough how difficult it is to maintain or regain market position once you lose it.
In short, AA's network is little different than it was 20 years ago - or at the conclusion of the TW LHR and EA Latin networks.... at least from the perspective of hubs and global strength.
In contrast, DL and CO both aggressively grew NYC, continental Europe and most recently LHR, and Latin America - and now UA/CO and DL are focusing on Asia.
DL and UA have full six continent route systems.
So, your argument that DL and UA will find that they can support their current fleet size belies the fact that they have actually developed and profitably (yes, they are profitable) support their vast networks.
Both DL and UA have used their mergers to fill the missing holes in their networks.
Further, if you want to compare DL's network failures - most notably DFW and CVG, you will see that DL has still maintained its relative position in both local markets as well as the flow markets those hubs most supported - ie DFW was necessary to support the southeast to southwest flows which now flow over MEM - and the rest of the DFW hub flows can be carried over ATL or SLC or the northern hubs.
Despite years of predictions of DL's doom at CVG, they still maintain 80% of the local market and there is no low cost competitor in those markets - and with the merger, DL moved from #4 in the midwest among network carriers to #1 (yes, NW was the largest network carrier in the midwest and DL has only built on it).
UA will likely close CLE and I would predict DEN is not far behind but UA also picks up a strong presence on the east coast... how DL and UA shake out on the east coast remains to be seen but if DL succeeds at getting the LGA/DCA slot deal pushed through - and they (DL and US) just filed papers with the appelate court saying they may be close to a settlement with the FAA - then DL could well become on par in NYC if not larger than CO and larger in BOS while UA will be larger in WAS.
So, there is a difference in how networks have been managed and despite a great deal of effort on AA's part - they don't have a lot to show for their growth initiatives....
and that explains to a very great degree why AA was unable to support an 800-900 aircraft mainline fleet while DL and UA likely will for quite some time.
FWA,
in your attempts to argue how poorly compensated DL employees are, you failed to properly interpret the data you even cite.
First, all of the statistics clerarly show that DL is above average in productivity for a network airline... despite all of your and others attempts to argue that DL employees are low-paid, the statistics actually show that they have low costs BECAUSE they are productive.
Second, you point out DL FA's average salary in the statistics while failing to notice that DL benefit costs are just a fraction lower than AA's - which are the highest in the industry. When you combine DL average benefit costs and FA salaries, you will see that DL FAs are actually the 2nd highest compensated in the network industry - and nearly identical to WN's labor costs.
You will also notice that if you take CO's FA costs and average employee benefit costs that CO FAs are not the 2nd highest paid at all - which is not surprising because as I have noted, CO doesn't pay the reitrement or healthcare benefits of the network carriers because CO is a much younger airline.
You probably also missed the statistic that shows that DL has the highest benefit to salary ratio in the network industry.
You will also note that DL has the lowest percentage of management costs of any of the network airlines - and there is absolutely truth to those that argue that AA's management costs are WELL above average.
But again, part of the reason why DL's labor costs are lower is because they are growing.... you attempt to argue that other airlines' employees are low paid because the average compensation is lower than AA's - while failing to note that DL is hiring 1000 FAs this year while AA has many still on furlough.
Again, average employee costs keep going up when no one is being added to the payroll and the existing employees just keep moving up the payscale.
When you look at all fo the statistics together - average salary AND benefits as well as growth rates, number of hires and furloughs, and productivity - then it becomes alot easier to see the picture for what it is - AA has a senior workforce with low productivity and the company is being driven by solely incremental benefits in cost while other carriers are seeing costs down through hiring new employees and growing new revenue streams.
But thanks for the great data to help validate once again what I have been saying....
Yes, I understand very much what AA employees have given up over the past few years... the problem is that unfortunately other competitors have obtained lower costs one way or another - and what was done 8 years ago even then was not sufficient.
At the same time, your post embodies the real problem which is clearly that labor has no desire to work w/ management to solve AA's cost problems - and it should be apparent to you by now and will be increasingly more apparent as time goes by - that AA's labor's unwillingness to help figure out how to solve AA's problems will come at great cost to AA employees.
No one is doubting the contributions you have made; I am not saying that you or management alone are off the hook or completely to blame - but it does mean that AA's future is in jeopardy as long as there is no desire to see AA's problems solved.
E,
I know you and others want to try to find something that says that AA will be just fine w/ its network but your arguments are not persuasive or grounded in any kind of evidence consistent w/ the history of the airline industry.
AA WAS the world's largest airline not that long ago and was proud to use that in its advertising. The simple fact is that AA engaged in a very aggressive effort to diversify its network - and most of those efforts failed:
1. East coast hubs at BNA and RDU were built in hopes of capturing the SE through two hubs yet neither were able to grow large enough to challenge ATL and CLT which are the two dominant hubs in the SE. Both hubs are now dominated by WN and DL is the largest network carrier in both hubs.
2. SJC was started as a west coast hub but couldn't compete against low cost carriers on the west coast. To be fair only UA has maintained a hub ON the west coast among US network carriers but AA has also seen its market position eroded in every west coast market as a result of the latest round of mergers and it is doubtful that AA will be able to regain a large enough position on the west coast.
3. AA tried to expand in continental Europe but, absent a large/strong enough partner on the continent - esp. in northern Europe - AA has been unable to diversify its European route system away from LHR - which has driven most of AA's transatlantic profits. Now LHR is open to other airlines who are aggressively growing and AA is the smallest of the FOUR US network airlines in continental Europe - yes, US is larger in continental Europe than AA even though US has no immunized partners.
4. We've discussed Asia but suffice to say that AA has no viable gateway that can compete to Asia without having a larger US competitor in the market.
AA has dropped from being the number one airline in the US NE, with DL becoming #1 at both LGA and JFK - AA's former hometown and at BOS and with CO larger in NYC as a whole and in WAS.
Latin America is the only region where AA has been able to maintain its market presence - and where it is still #1... proof enough how difficult it is to maintain or regain market position once you lose it.
In short, AA's network is little different than it was 20 years ago - or at the conclusion of the TW LHR and EA Latin networks.... at least from the perspective of hubs and global strength.
In contrast, DL and CO both aggressively grew NYC, continental Europe and most recently LHR, and Latin America - and now UA/CO and DL are focusing on Asia.
DL and UA have full six continent route systems.
So, your argument that DL and UA will find that they can support their current fleet size belies the fact that they have actually developed and profitably (yes, they are profitable) support their vast networks.
Both DL and UA have used their mergers to fill the missing holes in their networks.
Further, if you want to compare DL's network failures - most notably DFW and CVG, you will see that DL has still maintained its relative position in both local markets as well as the flow markets those hubs most supported - ie DFW was necessary to support the southeast to southwest flows which now flow over MEM - and the rest of the DFW hub flows can be carried over ATL or SLC or the northern hubs.
Despite years of predictions of DL's doom at CVG, they still maintain 80% of the local market and there is no low cost competitor in those markets - and with the merger, DL moved from #4 in the midwest among network carriers to #1 (yes, NW was the largest network carrier in the midwest and DL has only built on it).
UA will likely close CLE and I would predict DEN is not far behind but UA also picks up a strong presence on the east coast... how DL and UA shake out on the east coast remains to be seen but if DL succeeds at getting the LGA/DCA slot deal pushed through - and they (DL and US) just filed papers with the appelate court saying they may be close to a settlement with the FAA - then DL could well become on par in NYC if not larger than CO and larger in BOS while UA will be larger in WAS.
So, there is a difference in how networks have been managed and despite a great deal of effort on AA's part - they don't have a lot to show for their growth initiatives....
and that explains to a very great degree why AA was unable to support an 800-900 aircraft mainline fleet while DL and UA likely will for quite some time.
FWA,
in your attempts to argue how poorly compensated DL employees are, you failed to properly interpret the data you even cite.
First, all of the statistics clerarly show that DL is above average in productivity for a network airline... despite all of your and others attempts to argue that DL employees are low-paid, the statistics actually show that they have low costs BECAUSE they are productive.
Second, you point out DL FA's average salary in the statistics while failing to notice that DL benefit costs are just a fraction lower than AA's - which are the highest in the industry. When you combine DL average benefit costs and FA salaries, you will see that DL FAs are actually the 2nd highest compensated in the network industry - and nearly identical to WN's labor costs.
You will also notice that if you take CO's FA costs and average employee benefit costs that CO FAs are not the 2nd highest paid at all - which is not surprising because as I have noted, CO doesn't pay the reitrement or healthcare benefits of the network carriers because CO is a much younger airline.
You probably also missed the statistic that shows that DL has the highest benefit to salary ratio in the network industry.
You will also note that DL has the lowest percentage of management costs of any of the network airlines - and there is absolutely truth to those that argue that AA's management costs are WELL above average.
But again, part of the reason why DL's labor costs are lower is because they are growing.... you attempt to argue that other airlines' employees are low paid because the average compensation is lower than AA's - while failing to note that DL is hiring 1000 FAs this year while AA has many still on furlough.
Again, average employee costs keep going up when no one is being added to the payroll and the existing employees just keep moving up the payscale.
When you look at all fo the statistics together - average salary AND benefits as well as growth rates, number of hires and furloughs, and productivity - then it becomes alot easier to see the picture for what it is - AA has a senior workforce with low productivity and the company is being driven by solely incremental benefits in cost while other carriers are seeing costs down through hiring new employees and growing new revenue streams.
But thanks for the great data to help validate once again what I have been saying....
You won't have to wait much longer for me to post. It is all good news, and in very simple language. I am working on putting this good news together, and will probably have it all ready sometime on January 27. The B777s are coming sooner than the 2 that have been mentioned. That news was simply to offset the news of the 4th quarter loss - pure and simple.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
WT,
"Ken M,
Yes, I understand very much what AA employees have given up over the past few years... the problem is that unfortunately other competitors have obtained lower costs one way or another - and what was done 8 years ago even then was not sufficient.
At the same time, your post embodies the real problem which is clearly that labor has no desire to work w/ management to solve AA's cost problems - and it should be apparent to you by now and will be increasingly more apparent as time goes by - that AA's labor's unwillingness to help figure out how to solve AA's problems will come at great cost to AA employees.
No one is doubting the contributions you have made; I am not saying that you or management alone are off the hook or completely to blame - but it does mean that AA's future is in jeopardy as long as there is no desire to see AA's problems solved."
My point is that I already gave at the office. I refuse to cower every time the company sings the blues. So with your reasoning whenever a company cries "boo hoo" labor should capitulate? During our negotiations my own union would sing the chorus the song "The company's woes." But then change their refrain as the company changes the tune!
Listen, the company will always claim labor is at fault. So you say 8 years ago sacrifices given were not enough? Okay, let's say I give up another 10% in pay and benefits. But then with your logic when this doesn't work several years later I am again to capitulate? At what point will you allow me to stand up for my craft and profession? If after 8 years of concessions when LABOR gave up BILLIONS of dollars labor is still to blame for the prevention of being profitable then LABOR is not at fault.
Is AA's future in jeopardy? If it is it isn't because of me. It is because of those who enjoyed my "shared sacrifice". As long as we allow ourselves to be lied to and disrespected we will deserve what we get. After all, according to your beloved management labor is viewed as bricks.
"Ken M,
Yes, I understand very much what AA employees have given up over the past few years... the problem is that unfortunately other competitors have obtained lower costs one way or another - and what was done 8 years ago even then was not sufficient.
At the same time, your post embodies the real problem which is clearly that labor has no desire to work w/ management to solve AA's cost problems - and it should be apparent to you by now and will be increasingly more apparent as time goes by - that AA's labor's unwillingness to help figure out how to solve AA's problems will come at great cost to AA employees.
No one is doubting the contributions you have made; I am not saying that you or management alone are off the hook or completely to blame - but it does mean that AA's future is in jeopardy as long as there is no desire to see AA's problems solved."
My point is that I already gave at the office. I refuse to cower every time the company sings the blues. So with your reasoning whenever a company cries "boo hoo" labor should capitulate? During our negotiations my own union would sing the chorus the song "The company's woes." But then change their refrain as the company changes the tune!
Listen, the company will always claim labor is at fault. So you say 8 years ago sacrifices given were not enough? Okay, let's say I give up another 10% in pay and benefits. But then with your logic when this doesn't work several years later I am again to capitulate? At what point will you allow me to stand up for my craft and profession? If after 8 years of concessions when LABOR gave up BILLIONS of dollars labor is still to blame for the prevention of being profitable then LABOR is not at fault.
Is AA's future in jeopardy? If it is it isn't because of me. It is because of those who enjoyed my "shared sacrifice". As long as we allow ourselves to be lied to and disrespected we will deserve what we get. After all, according to your beloved management labor is viewed as bricks.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
Probably 80% of AA FA's are at top of scale due to ten years without hiring. Growing carriers such as WN have large numbers working at lesser rates due to being more junior, in spite of high hourly rates. Even legacy carriers such as DL and UA have done quite a bit of hiring in recent years.
It does mean that the company has high labor costs, but that's due to seniority stagnation, not high pay scales. Starting pay for AA domestic is $20.24 per hour, comparable to low cost carriers such as JB.
MK
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
UA closing DEN?... WT, me thinks you need a drug test.
You had to go back to the 1980's and early 1990's to talk about failed network expansions at BNA, RDU, and SJC. Conveniently, you overlooked the expansion at LAX which has put AA ahead of AS, UA and DL there.
And MIA? You are somewhat ignorant of that market. EA's authorities gave it a jump start, but only account for perhaps half (if not less) of the markets AA is currently serving out of MIA. AA's continually added there, and will continue to do so.
DL maintaining its share at DFW? Hogwash. US Airways has a higher share than DL. The argument that "flow traffic moved to MEM" is also weak. DL closed the hub eight or ten years ago, and the NW acquisition wasn't until 2009. What happened in the 'tween years?....
I know you bleed DL red. And that's OK. But the widget colored glasses are beginning to taint your view again. AA's got big issues to overcome, but I don't see network being one of them.
Slightly related, with the BA/IB merger being closed as of yesterday, I think oneworld is going to start giving Star and Skyteam a bigger run for the money in Europe. IB's geography and network combined with BA's management is going to be a solid combination. LHR's two runway in good weather airport has been saturated for decades, and suffers in poor weather. That is not the case with MAD by any means. It's the only real fair weather hub airport anywhere in Europe, easy to transit, and has excessive runway capacity when compared to FRA, LHR, CDG or AMS.
To the extent that flow traffic currently at extremely high cost LHR can be shifted over MAD, I think you'll see some interesting outcomes.
You had to go back to the 1980's and early 1990's to talk about failed network expansions at BNA, RDU, and SJC. Conveniently, you overlooked the expansion at LAX which has put AA ahead of AS, UA and DL there.
And MIA? You are somewhat ignorant of that market. EA's authorities gave it a jump start, but only account for perhaps half (if not less) of the markets AA is currently serving out of MIA. AA's continually added there, and will continue to do so.
DL maintaining its share at DFW? Hogwash. US Airways has a higher share than DL. The argument that "flow traffic moved to MEM" is also weak. DL closed the hub eight or ten years ago, and the NW acquisition wasn't until 2009. What happened in the 'tween years?....
I know you bleed DL red. And that's OK. But the widget colored glasses are beginning to taint your view again. AA's got big issues to overcome, but I don't see network being one of them.
Slightly related, with the BA/IB merger being closed as of yesterday, I think oneworld is going to start giving Star and Skyteam a bigger run for the money in Europe. IB's geography and network combined with BA's management is going to be a solid combination. LHR's two runway in good weather airport has been saturated for decades, and suffers in poor weather. That is not the case with MAD by any means. It's the only real fair weather hub airport anywhere in Europe, easy to transit, and has excessive runway capacity when compared to FRA, LHR, CDG or AMS.
To the extent that flow traffic currently at extremely high cost LHR can be shifted over MAD, I think you'll see some interesting outcomes.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Good point, and one that probably applies across all workgroups, again dating back to the massive hiring when B scale was introduced in the early 80's. But the recall lists have pretty much been cleared with all workgroups except the pilots, so that should start to shift again this year, no?
How did retirements hold up for 2010 vs. 2009? I'd have expected to see higher retirements as "best 3 of 10" starts to reflect the 2003 concessions. I'm sure the economy has a lot to do with it, but at some point, those who were at top of scale may start losing money in their pensions. Holding out hope for retro sounds great, but that may also be rolling the dice a bit.
jersey777
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 73
We still have around 700 flight attendants out on furlough even after the last recall occurs in April. It will still take some time to clear the recall list and the first new hire class starts.
As far as retirement goes, there has been a slight uptick in the numbers but you will not see a huge change there. The reason is very complex and for the most part money isn't the primary reason that flight attendants chose to retire. I have spoke to several very senior flight attendants and there is a real attachment to the job....wheather it be the lifestyle or simply a social outlet. American Airlines is where their friends are and it is an all consuming way of life. Some don't want to be home 24/7 with their spouse and some don't have anyone at home to talk to. There is a wonderful male flight attendant at JFK who commutes from San Diego and he is 62. We talked about retirement and he has been able to amass nearly $800,000 into his 401k. This along with retirement and social security would lend him very well off. Yet he commutes across the country and flies Buenos Aires....and he loves it! I say all the power to him!
balloonguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2004
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 0
And what does all of this rambling have to do with the topic of "additional widebody aircraft"??
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
E,
with all due respect, I think your contempt for DL and your loyalty to AA are blinding you of the reality of what is happening in the airline industry.... and not surprisingly, it is also the same failure of AA labor to fully grasp the strategic threat to AA that makes it very possible that AA will indeed be relegated to 2nd tier status from which it will be unable to effectively compete.
I have followed the airline industry long enough to know that AA has been a very well run company for a long time - and has been the leader in marketing and finance for years... in fact, part of what makes it hard for me and others - perhaps you - to watch AA lose its competitive edge.
I think if you were honest, you would admit that AA's leadership has not extended to its network development.... deregulation and the opportunity to expand beyond the traditional strengths of the regulated era didn't happen yesterday... none of the prederegulation era airlines, DL, UA, and US as well as WN included didn't start closing the gap on their network deficiencies this decade - so it is very much part of the discussion to talk about what has happened with network growth 20 years ago.
BNA, RDU, and SJC were all failed expansions by AA... when you fast forward to the last decade and the TW acquisition, AA unwound that expansion so my statement is very much valid that AA's domestic network of today is very little changed in terms of hubs and major routes than it was in the early 80s right after deregulation with DFW and ORD being AA's primary domestic hubs.
I have ALWAYS given AA credit for what it has done in MIA and Latin America - but MIA is not a domestic connecting hub. It serves the local market - and EA did the same thing. AA did take a far less developed Latin hub and has expanded it - but it also points out that AA bought a leadership position in Latin America and has maintained it.
AA has always been strong in LAX so what they are today isn't much different from what they have always been.... since other carriers have flown most of the markets which AA is now adding, we'll wait on whether they are successes for AA. And BTW, UA and CO today are larger than AA at LAX - so AA WILL lose its position at LAX.
You might want to hold onto your suggestions about a drug test... do you realize that UA now has less than 33% local market share - the lowest percentage of any network carrier at any of their hubs? Do you realize that WN now boards 90% of the local passengers UA does despite not serving the top NE markets nonstop? Do you also realize that UA has pulled more capacity out of DEN than any other hub this year. WN continues to grow at DEN, F9 hasn't gone away, and UA's strategy of skimming off the top passengers hasn't worked and has only allowed other carriers to take share - including giving them the ability to price the market. Within five years, I am quite certain that UA will have less than 20% of the local market at DEN... if you want to continue to call that a viable hub, go ahead but it seems pretty apparent that UA intends to shift its flow capacity south to IAH and up to ORD and relegate DEN just to local market status.
As for flow capacity, I don't have the numbers in front of me but if you look at key southeast to southwest O&Ds like LA/MS/AR/western TN O&Ds to the west, I am quite sure you will see that DL is still in those markets despite having closed DFW. DL was supporting a hub of 200 flights to essentially serve only those network flows because they at best got about 15% of the local DFW market - 1/3 of what AA had - and further evidence that you can't be a fraction of the size of your competitor and effectively stay as a player.
More significantly, DL moved that DFW hub capacity to the NE, esp. NYC where even now DL has overtaken AA as the largest airline on the NY side of NYC - and if the slot deal goes through - it is very possible that DL could indeed grow to parity with CO in the local NYC market since EWR will never attract the percentage of local passengers per flight that LGA and JFK does.
We have discussed the DL vs US at DFW issue before - DOT stats for the 2nd quarter show DL larger than US in both revenue and passengers... but it still doesn't really change the point that DL has maintained a position in DFW- what US doesn't change that - and DL does indeed provide global access from DFW- US doesn't because its network doesn't support it - so DFW can't do more than US' network provides. It's also worth noting that FL will leave DFW-ATL as part of the WN merger, one of DL and AA's top markets and DL, as the largest carrier already will likely retain its market share relative to AA - while I am not aware of any growth in US' market that is on the horizon.
Actually, I do not bleed DL red... but you and others find it very hard to give DL the credit for doing what AA tried to do 7 years ago out of court. Fuel prices spiked in 2005 - a year and 1/2 into AA's restructuring - they stopped growing but the other four network airlines restructured in BK and gained the advantages that AA thought they would get outside of BK.
I commend AA for taking the out of court route - but the simple fact is that it didn't work... AA's network has not grown where others have - and even in places where AA has been traditionally strong such as RDU and BNA and BOS, other network carriers have overtaken AA.
AA is incrementally tweaking while other carriers are moving ahead in larger leaps through mergers and larger scale initiatives.
The fact that the first how many pages of this thread was about a massive widebody expansion that turned out to be an order for 2 - yes 2 as you said it - 773ERs goes to show how badly AA people want to see AA grow - but it hasn't happened - and my contention still stands that when it does with AA's current cost structure, let me know and I'll eat my words.
jimntx
Veteran
Actually, total attrition was down substantially for 2010. However, the ratio of retirements to total attrition increased a good bit.
Year Ttl Attr. Retirements
2010 590 332
2009 1295 230
2008 861 552
(Sorry about the messy columns. I don't know how to get them to stay lined up.)
I was really surprised at how low the total attrition was for 2010. As you said, holding out for a cash retro payment is a definite crap shoot.
Very little, of course, and I apologize for my part in derailing this topic.
That said, the initial rumours of AA taking a dozen or more 777s from JAL made no sense and the later rumours of AA getting as many as 30 777s still make no sense.
IMO, as long as discussions are civil, a little off-topic wandering never hurt anyone. After taking a militant stance against off-topic discussions for a couple of years, the owners of this place have moved toward the other end of the spectrum. B)
